Ted Menzies

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely that is correct. As I commented earlier, one individual farmer who chose to move his grain across the U.S. border simply to get more money did end up in leg irons. It is unfortunate that that would ever happen.

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would actually like to reread the three options, but I will not, out of due respect. I believe they have been read often enough that all hon. members can understand.

I do need to address the suggestion that the Canadian Wheat Board cannot function without monopoly powers. I am going back to my hon. colleague's comments that 60% of the grain in western Canada is actually marketed by the private trade, the Canadian Wheat Board simply facilitates the paperwork. There are grain companies in western Canada that own no assets. They market grain. They do not even own a port terminal. The model is built. It can be done.

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I take offence to that question. There is no reason that the hon. member should suggest that farmers in the west are not bright enough to understand those three simple questions. I think that most of my constituents would find it quite offensive. They are three simple statements . I will read them one more time. Perhaps I should read them very slowly so the hon. member for Malpeque can actually understand them.

The Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk for the marketing of barley into domestic human consumption and export markets.

That is option number one.

I [as a farmer] would like the option to market my barley to the Canadian Wheat Board or any other domestic or foreign buyer.

That is option number two. That is great.

The Canadian Wheat Board should not have a role in the marketing of barley.

That is option number three.

Some farmers will choose option three because of the years of frustration. The leg iron marks on their ankles perhaps would be enough of a reason for them to vote for option number three. The most important point is they are clear, concise questions that I think any farmer would be completely able to understand.

I should tell members I have actually filled out my ballot and returned it. It did not take me long. The language was quite clear. I am not sure why the hon. member for Malpeque cannot understand clear choice language.

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, please do not let the way I am introduced precede the fact that I am a farmer.

I farmed for 30 years before I came to the House. I need to preface my remarks by reminding the members of the House that I am a farmer. I have lived under this board's jurisdiction. I am one of the farmers from western Canada. If I farmed in any other place in Canada, if I was a beef producer, a pork producer or a dairy farmer, I would not be faced with having my wheat and barley for human consumption confiscated from the moment that it is put in the ground. That is no exaggeration.

As a farmer, I make all the decisions. I make the decisions as to what I am going to grow, how I am going to raise it, what the fertility program is for it, and how I shall harvest it, but while I am growing it and harvesting it I know full well that I have no choice, no choice whatsoever, in how it is sold, where it goes, or what I am going to get for it.

As my farm grew over the years and grew to produce less and less volume of wheat and barley for human consumption, that was replaced with non-board grains, as we refer to them in western Canada: peas, lentils, chickpeas and feed barley. Those crops took the place of wheat and barley for human consumption simply because I had no control over the price and no control over when it was sold.

For many years I waited 18 months to see the returns from my wheat and barley. For example, one year we had a great crop of hard red spring number one, the best wheat in the world. Probably 40% of that wheat sat in my bin all winter. I had the opportunity, if I could have sold it into the United States in Shelby, Montana, of getting $1.35 more a bushel than what the Wheat Board was offering in its pool return outlook, but the board did not even sell it. The board did not even offer the wheat that I could have sold in Shelby, Montana for $1.35 more a bushel than I was offered, for more money in my pocket, money not received because it was not sold. I missed that opportunity because I had a monopoly, a monopoly forcing me to deal with someone who did not have the obligation to move that wheat.

That was my obligation, my requirement under the law, or else I would have been dragged away in leg irons like those who felt the wrath of the former finance minister of the previous Liberal government when he was agriculture minister. Those farmers tried to receive more money for their wheat, but they were dragged off in leg irons and thrown in jail. I chose not to break the law. I chose to come here to try to help make that change. For western farmers, it is only fair.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture and I share a common passion for this injustice. Why should we not have the same choice as every other industry in this country?

I put the argument forward that we have a strong and vibrant auto industry in this country. What if that auto industry had come to the government and had said that it would like to set up an auto industry in Canada and the government of that day had said to Ford, Chrysler, General Motors or whoever to go ahead and manufacture those cars and trucks, but they could only sell them to one buyer?

That is what the Canadian Wheat Board is. It is not a single desk seller. It is a single desk buyer. When it goes out on the international stage, there are many other sellers of wheat, so the single desk seller argument holds no water with me.

To go back to the auto industry, we would not have had an auto industry if we had told automakers that we would provide a monopoly buyer of their products and that we would tell them whether or not we were going to take their products, when we would take their products, and what they were going to get paid for their products.

This is a plain and simple argument. It is a choice that is not allowed the farmers in the Wheat Board district.

It is a very sad day when we see members on the opposite side of the House arguing against freedom. That is all it is. The hon. member for Malpeque has made this an emotional and sad debate. I would argue that he has never dealt with this issue the way that my hon. colleague and I have. We represent an awful lot of people who deal with the same issue.

I never have suggested that we should take away the option of the Canadian Wheat Board. We believe very firmly in the farmers who want to use the selling opportunities that the Canadian Wheat Board may bring to them having that choice, and we wish them the best, but we also wish that we had the same choice to market our wheat and barley for human consumption that we do for our other crops that we grow.

Let us look at the organics industry. That was raised in committee yesterday. I have many friends who are organic farmers. They have been frustrated over the years. They have taken the initiative to find a niche market, and a very sustainable niche market, but they had to buy back their grain from the Canadian Wheat Board, which never had any intention of selling it. The word “buyback” should never have been in this equation. They paid the Canadian Wheat Board to market their grain and they knew it was never going to market their grain because the Canadian Wheat Board had the monopoly over wheat and barley for human consumption. It does not make sense.

But then there was an epiphany. The Canadian Wheat Board decided to market organic grains this year. All it managed to do was go to the markets these industrious organic farmers had already set up and say, “We are going to undercut what you used to get”. The intermediary is reducing their margins. It is absolutely unbelievable that this could happen in a democracy.

The hon. member for Malpeque talks about marketing power. I reference the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is simply a buyer, not a seller. We would like to argue that we grow the best wheat in the world. I will argue that until the day I die, but I know factually that there are a lot of other countries that will say the same thing.

However, the Canadian Wheat Board is using the argument that it is the board, the monopoly Canadian Wheat Board, that returns all these wonderful profits to farmers in western Canada. No. It is the farmers, and do not let any member of the House take that away. I have heard hon. members say that it is the power of the Canadian Wheat Board that provides returns to Canadian farmers in western Canada.

Let us look at the options that have been provided by pulling oats out of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is an absolute success. Canola is another one. Those are the crops that are sustaining farmers in western Canada. They are the reasons that we are actually able to sustain profitability on our farms, because we are able to grow and market our grains. I can market my grains at any time of the day or night. I can lock in a futures price on all of my other grains. I can hedge for next year, locking in a profitable price if I see it, but not on my Wheat Board grains. I have no idea whether the board is going to market my grain for me or whether my bins will be full and I will have to go back to the bank to borrow more money. My choice should be to market the grain.

[Committees of the House, March 2nd, 2007]

All six of them.

[February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that we have been very upfront about these negotiations and have consulted every step of the way with interested stakeholders, including the Canadian shipbuilding industry. These comprehensive consultations have been very helpful in shaping Canada's negotiating position with all of our partners.

Let me reiterate that negotiators are addressing Canadian sensitivities through provisions such as longer tariff phase-out periods, product-specific rules of origin that reflect industry concerns, and no changes to the government's ability to procure ships through Canadian shipyards. On this last element let me be very clear. The government is working on a renewed approach to shipbuilding to help ensure, for example, that the ships purchased by the federal government are built in Canada where competitive conditions exist.

We are working toward comprehensive agreements that include tariff elimination for all non-agricultural products and a range of agricultural products, while also--

[February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for his interest in the government's efforts to expand export opportunities for Canadian businesses along with the potential impact of trade liberalization on Canada's shipbuilding industry.

The government shares the hon. member's interest. We recognize that some within the ships industry may be sensitive to the removal of Canadian tariffs in the context of our ongoing FTA negotiations with the EFTA countries, those being Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, as well as with South Korea. This is why we have consulted with and involved all interested stakeholders from coast to coast, including shipbuilders and ship owners since trade negotiations with Korea and the EFTA countries of Europe were first launched.

As a result of these consultations the government has, to the greatest extent possible, reflected industry's concerns in the negotiations. I can assure the hon. member that Canada's negotiators are doing their utmost to effectively address their concerns.

However, it is important that the hon. member also understand that the competitive challenges facing this industry have existed for a number of years and go beyond both these various trade initiatives and trade liberalizations more generally.

I will address how we are dealing with ships in our negotiations in more detail, but first I wish to elaborate on the overall merits of free trade on Canada's economy as a whole.

The hon. member is surely well aware of the importance that trade plays in Canada's economy, contributing to over 40% of Canada's gross domestic product. Indeed, one in five Canadian jobs is supported by trade.

In Advantage Canada, the government's plan to strengthen Canada's economy and make it more competitive, we made clear our determination to pursue bilateral free trade agreements with targeted countries. Canada is unfortunately lagging significantly behind its key competitors, not having concluded a single FTA since 2001. Since then Canada's main competitors, including the U.S. and the EU, have been aggressive in their negotiations of free trade agreements.

The U.S., for example, has successfully concluded free trade agreements with 15 countries since Canada concluded an FTA six years ago. In fact, Canada is the only significant trading nation in the world that has not concluded a comprehensive free trade agreement in the last five years.

Canada must do more to level the playing field vis-à-vis its competitors. We must ensure that Canadian exporters and investors have competitive terms of access to international markets. We cannot stand idly by on the sidelines while our competitors negotiate FTAs all around us. Canada must do more to bring trade barriers down in order to better position Canadian businesses for success. Canada is very much part of a global economy and it cannot shelter itself from increasing competition nor can it neglect opportunities.

The EFTA countries are developed modern economies that offer significant opportunities for Canadian businesses. Combined, the EFTA countries represent Canada's eighth largest merchandise export destination. An agreement with EFTA would be Canada's first transatlantic free trade agreement and would provide a strategic platform to expand commercial ties throughout Europe.

It would further offer advantages to Canadian businesses over key competitors such as the U.S. and would put Canada on an equal footing with other nations that already have FTAs with the EFTA countries, such as Mexico, Chile, Korea and the EU. A free trade agreement with EFTA countries also offers potential gains for Canadian industry and several industrial and agricultural sectors.

South Korea is another valuable trading partner for Canada and represents a gateway to northeast Asia, a region of strategic importance to global value chains. In 2006 Korea was Canada's seventh largest trading partner, with Canadian exports totalling a record $3.3 billion. A free trade agreement with Korea would offer the possibility of enhanced market access for a wide range of Canadian goods, services and investment opportunities--

[Development Assistance Accountability Act, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak once again to Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of development assistance abroad.

As I said before, the House will find no disagreement from the government on the fundamental principles underlying the proposed legislation. We can all agree that poverty reduction should be a driving value in our aid efforts and that poverty reduction entails a commitment to better health and education, the promotion and protection of human rights, environmental sustainability and equality between men and women.

However, our government believes that poverty reduction means more than just that. Successful poverty reduction also requires strengthened democratic governance in developing countries to ensure that governments protect, respect and promote the rights of citizens. Providing basic health and education is essential but will produce no lasting benefits if a government turns on its own citizens or is incapable of protecting them from lawlessness, crime and corruption.

Our government is implementing programs based on this broader definition of poverty reduction in order to help bring freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law, long-lasting development and compassion to those less fortunate. We take this very seriously.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the members of the opposition. Canada focuses its development assistance program in the poorest developing countries and, within those countries, on improving the lives of the poorest and the most vulnerable men, women and children.

There is no doubt that we can do more but doing more also means working smarter to ensure that our aid dollars are spent more effectively, with greater accountability and with clear results for the poor in developing countries.

Our government's commitment to aid effectiveness has been clear from the beginning and is reflected in our determination to focus our aid program and to strengthen our ability to deliver aid effective initiatives, with results commensurate with dollars spent.

Our commitment to greater accountability also means demonstrating this effectiveness to Canadians. Starting in 2007, we will publish an annual report on the international development results and that is to be delivered to Parliament and to Canadians. We have a positive story to tell Canadians and we intend to tell it.

However, I fear that the opposition is more concerned about scoring political points with the Make Poverty History campaign than it is about ensuring we pass concrete legislation for our development assistance. This is evident in the bill, a bill that is unclear, lacks ministerial accountability and opens us up to potential legal challenges at almost every turn.

In my speech at second reading, I highlighted some of the difficulties the bill presented, serious concerns that my colleagues and I have tried to address and amend at committee stage. For example, CIDA currently falls under the Foreign Affairs Act, meaning that if no minister of international cooperation is named by the governor in council, the responsibility of the agency falls to the minister of foreign affairs.

This is a legal relationship that already exists. In our committee deliberations on Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, despite efforts by myself and my colleagues to clarify for the opposition members this relationship, the committee voted 7 to 4 to disregard this relationship and create its own definition of the minister.

I have provided for the House merely one example of the confusion the bill creates and the irresponsible actions of the opposition members.

Legislation can help strengthen Canada's development assistance, particularly when the mandate is straightforward and precise, when accountabilities are clear and when reporting on those results is substantive and unambiguous. Legislation that meets these tests can be an enormously powerful instrument for guiding and focusing our aid program.

Bill C-293 fails these tests and, I am sorry to say, was not helped by the actions of many opposition members on the committee.

In our view, Bill C-293 is flawed because it fails to provide a precise, transparent mandate and it encumbers ministers responsible for Canada's aid program with onerous, unnecessary and inappropriate accountabilities that increase administrative burden but do not add value to aid programming. Why should three government departments be asked to table the same information?

The end result is a cumbersome piece of legislation that lacks essential clarity and operational efficiency. The bill is so laden with unproductive restrictions and unnecessary criteria that it would do nothing more than overload the aid program with an administrative and bureaucratic complexity.

There are a number of specific issues with this bill that I wish to touch on.

First, a workable mandate statement must be precise, simple and clear. The mandate statement of Bill C-293 is none of these things. Instead, it creates a number of overlapping and complex obligations on the aid program.

In our view, the legal requirement that the minister should take into account the perspectives of the poor when disbursing Canadian assistance, begs a question. What would be the test of such a requirement? Not only is it impossible to interpret this requirement but it adds rigidity to an approach that should remain flexible and responsive to local circumstances in developing countries.

That obligation in the proposed mandate statement may impinge upon a process of developing priorities that is usually determined at the country level following consultations with a variety of actors, including people living in poverty. These procedures vary from country to country, depending on the political circumstances and the level of commitment by the government to poverty reduction, human rights and governance framework. They already exist as good practice and should remain as such.

I also wish to discuss the issue of jurisdiction over the aid program. This issue requires very careful review because jurisdictions for Canadian development assistance overlap. We agree that accountabilities for the aid program require careful review but, in our view, the rush to ensure this bill passes into legislation has not given us the time to review and refine ministerial accountabilities regarding the aid program.

Finally, the reporting provisions of the bill remain redundant and confuse ministerial accountability. For example, the named minister is required to report on activities that may not fall under his or her jurisdiction. There are several instances where new reports would merely be a synthesis of material that is already in the public domain. In other words, it is old wine in new bottles.

Finally, much of the reporting asked for is already authorized under the legislation, for example, in the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.

In my view, Bill C-293, despite being worthy in its intent, is highly flawed legislation and should not be adopted because of its many shortcomings. I would remind my colleagues that we will be judged on the international stage by this legislation. I would suggest, if this bill does pass, that as members of Parliament and as legislators in this country we should be ashamed to support such poorly drafted legislation.

[Committees of the House, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the comment I made before. If we made an arbitrary decision to challenge this within our WTO bounds, and certainly we could do that, there would be howls from the opposition that the government is moving without the support of the industry. We have a large industry that could come forward and make a recommendation to the CITT. That has not happened.

[Committees of the House, February 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his fine work on the trade committee, which I think has provided both of us with a great opportunity to hear some of the forward looking ideas of folks like those at the Conference Board of Canada and the EDC, which we had come to talk to us about the way that we can provide the opportunity for Canadian companies to not live within a bubble, to be able to look at the opportunities and access those opportunities.

We also have talked about the older workers' program, as I have in my speech, so I take exception to that. I think we have addressed this. It is an issue. He and I probably are going to be getting to that age fairly soon ourselves, so I am glad we have looked at that.

There are many other opportunities, but I might remind the hon. member, looking outward at the opportunities, rather than looking inward and looking backward, that industries in his riding and in my riding and all across this country are going to have to compete on a global field.

We hear so much about what is happening in China and how China is so difficult to compete with because of its low cost of labour, but the last time I talked to someone in China it was outsourcing labour to Vietnam because it was lower there.

We need to also look at opportunities, at how we can provide opportunities and more jobs for our Canadians through looking at the opportunities and not looking at the way to wrap ourselves in protectionism.